Technology and Innovation Management 1674
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT 1674 SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT - STATE UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE MODEL 1675 Levi Jakšić Maja, Jovanović Milica, Petković Jasna GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE IN TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT – THE CASE OF SERBIA 1684 Marinković Sanja, Rakićević Jovana, Levi Jakšić Maja MECHANISMS FOR STIMULATING INNOVATION CAPABILITIES IN W ESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES 1693 Štrbac Dijana, Kutlača Đuro, Ţivković Lazar POSSIBILITIES OF OPENING UP THE STAGE-GATE MODEL 1700 Stošić Biljana, Milutinović Radul THE EVOLUTION OF MOBILE TECHNOLOGY IN RETAIL MARKETING CHANNELS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 1708 Končar Jelena, Vukmirović Goran, Leković Sonja ADVANCE REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 1713 Jovanović Verka, Vukelić ĐorĎe CLOUD COMPUTING INFRASTRUCTURE APPLICATIONS IN COMPUTER SIMULATION 1721 Marinković Mihailo, Čavoški Sava, Marković Aleksandar TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT 1674 SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT - STATE, UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE MODEL Maja Levi Jakšić1, Milica Jovanović2 Jasna Petković3 1University of Belgrade, Faculty of Organizational Sciences [email protected] 2University of Belgrade, Faculty of Organizational Sciences [email protected] 3University of Belgrade, Faculty of Organizational Sciences [email protected] Abstract: In this paper a general model is created for measuring the performance of Technology and Innovation Management (TIM) related to the crucial dimensions/elements of the Triple Helix (TH) model. More precisely, the Triple Helix Model (high education – government - industry) is analysed in relation to its fulfilling the three main functions of TIM: planning, organizing and control (POC). The general model – TMD- TH (Technology Management and Development – Triple Helix) represents the framework for further more specific research into the relations of the observed dimensions. The general model is further divided into sub-models: TMD-G, TMD-U and TMD-I, where G stands for government, U stands for university and I denotes industry. The sub-models are to be investigated in more detail and the research results will be presented in separate papers. In the general model, the performance of each TH dimension is to be monitored by a set of indicators classified into categories according to the specific management function (POC) of TIM. The general model enables better systematisation of the indicators of TIM with links established with the main roles of the actors in the TH model. When applied in concrete situations in practice, at the level of national economy, the results obtained represent a base for developing policies and strategy that will be oriented at introducing change in the domains of highest priority in the aim of achieving more efficient and effective results in sustainable development. Keywords: Triple-Helix (TH) concept, Sustainability, Technology and Innovation management (TIM), General model, Performance Indicators 1. INTRODUCTION In the dynamic global environment, with continuous and exponential technological growth and development, the relevance of the research conducted in managing technology, innovation and change is of high priority. The ultimate goal of achieving global competitiveness of firms and economies means that one of the crucial competitive factors today, technology and innovation, is to be managed by closely measuring, monitoring, controlling its performance. Why is managing technology so important? As stated in (White & Bruton, 2007), the necessity for technology management lies in: (a) the rapid pace of technological changes which require multidisciplinary approaches; (b) the rapid pace of technological development which shortened product life cycles; (c) the need to cut time for product development and create more flexible organizations; (d) the necessity to maximize competitiveness effectively by using new technologies; (e) the importance of changing management tools caused by rapid technology changes. Technology and innovation is placed at the centre of the policies and strategy developed for firms, industries, national economies, regions, sectors, etc. In this paper we develop the general model of sustainable technology and innovation management based on the assertion that it is the management of technology and innovation, not just the new technologies themselves, that represents the true competitive force leading to sustainable development. Effective TIM is dependent on the capacities to measure and monitor performance which is not an easy task having in mind the interrelatedness of the activities, the time dimension and delays inherent to research and development inputs and effects, synergies, etc. Up to now, in both practice and theory, mostly used indicators of technology and innovation management (TIM) were related to research and development (R&D) activities, intensity of technology changes and degree of implementing innovations. The overview of literature in the field of TIM, as evidence of theoretical and empirical studies, shows that it is necessary to develop a complete, comprehensive approach. In this paper, an original attempt is made to classify and systematize TIM indicators according to basic management functions - planning, organizing and control (POC) linked to the performance of Triple Helix (TH) actors. The role of TIM as key factor in accomplishing sustainable development is clearly pointed out in theory and justified in practice, as sustainable new technologies and innovation lie at the core of economic, social and technological progress. The capacities and competencies in managing technologies are becoming at least as important, if not, even more significant than the capacities of the technologies, per se. TIM performance is measured and tracked by indicators at different levels: national economy, economy sectors, and companies. In this way, priorities are set for future actions in 1675 order to improve management areas that are not developed enough, and to achieve the overall goals of efficiency and effectiveness of technology management at all levels. The perspective of sustainable development requires an overall approach, encompassing indicators classified by using the Triple Helix concept (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1995). The TH comprises the hybridization of three dimensions/elements university, industry and government in order to generate new institutional and social formats for the production, transfer and application of knowledge (The Triple Helix Concept, 2013). The basic hypothesis and assumptions elaborated in this paper are the following: General hypothesis: 1. Technology management and entrepreneurship is as important as development of technology, per se, for sustainable development, and Special hypothesis and assumptions: 1. TH model is a basic model for sustainability and TIM indicators are established according to the dimensions/elements of TH, 2. TIM functions, elaborated by POC, classified according to TH dimensions/elements, enable the establishing of the comprehensive, general model, 3. The general model with feedback relations is applicable for effective strategic management in the state, university and industry domains, 4. Application of the model with systematized indicators in practice is a valuable tool for more effective strategic analysis, establishing policies and strategy and their implementation, with specific tasks for TH-state, university and industry related to different functions of TIM. In this paper, the authors have created a new general cross-functional model for measuring sustainable technology management and development, TMD-TH, based on two concepts: (1) TH concept with three dimensions: university, industry and government; (2) management concept based on three management functions – planning, organizing and control. 2. THE PRODUCTIVITY PARADOX AND THE TRIPLE HELIX CONCEPT Building knowledge-based economy and society in the traditional sense is not sufficient enough for substantial economic and social progress and development. Theoretically and in practice it has been discovered that, despite the undoubtedly central role of investments in new knowledge in economic growth, there is still a neglected, missing link to economic growth, employment opportunities and international competitiveness. (Levi Jakšić et al., 2011a) The productivity paradox detected in the 1950s discovered a new phenomenon: the investments in physical capital were increasing, but the productivity indicators decreasing (Bailey, M. N., Chakrabarti, A. K., 1988, pp.5). The fact that intangible components have been neglected showed that a new perspective and paradigm was necessary. The Japanese management approaches that emphasize the «soft» elements had proved effective and were pouring into Europe (especially Sweden, Germany) in the 1960s and by the mid- 1970s in the United States emerged the shift of focus towards intangible assets. Knowledge, creativity, ideas and knowledge based capabilities and skills were found to have been neglected whereas resulting in productivity slowdown while the physical capital investments were still growing. This result pointed out to intangible technology components and knowledge as inevitable in economic growth models (Levi Jakšic, 2011). The scholars were quick to point to the common denominator for success: a shift away from the factor of physical capital towards knowledge capital, which generally consists of: science, technology, creativity, ideas. (Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D. B., Strom,